Environmental and Policy Focus
San Diego Union-Tribune - Jul 31
A San Diego superior court judge ruled against an environmental group on July 30, rejecting its lawsuit claiming that the San Diego County Water Authority had not done enough to account for the environmental impacts of its water supply projects or focused enough on conservation. San Diego Coastkeeper filed the lawsuit last year, challenging the water authority’s move to approve a long-term water supply plan update, as well as a climate action plan and a supplemental environmental impact report. The group took issue in particular with a desalination plant slated to open in Carlsbad this fall, alleging that the water authority had failed to provide an “honest accounting” of the energy the desalination process requires. The Carlsbad Desalination Plant is being developed by a private company, Poseidon Water, and will sell water to the water authority when it is operational. Representatives from the water authority argued that the agency was not required to report greenhouse gas emission for facilities over which it has no operational control, and the court agreed that the agency had followed the proper procedure in developing and approving its water supply update and climate action plans.
Los Angeles Times - Aug 4
President Obama's plan to cut carbon pollution from power plants over the next 15 years will force states to address climate change by pushing them to act more like California. The Clean Power Plan announced Monday poses significant challenges for states that rely on coal-fired power plants for much of their electricity, but complying with the rules will be much simpler in California than in most other states. The state has practically eliminated coal from its energy portfolio and has already adopted greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that are more stringent than the new federal rules. Nationwide, the new climate change regulations are expected to cut the electricity sector's greenhouse gas emissions 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, according to EPA estimates. The rules, issued under the federal Clean Air Act, give each state its own pollution reduction goal and allow each to choose the measures it will use to comply.
Allen Matkins - Jul 31
A public agency may not rely solely on a request to the Legislature to appropriate funding to mitigate a project's adverse environmental impacts and conclude that mitigation is infeasible because the funding cannot be guaranteed, according to the California Supreme Court's August 3, 2015, opinion in City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of the California State University. The Court addressed the measures that a state agency must consider to mitigate offsite environmental impacts, when the agency lacks both the authority to implement the mitigation measures, and the authority to force an appropriation of funds by the Legislature to pay for that mitigation. The opinion makes clear that a state agency cannot condition its duty to mitigate on the Legislature's grant of an earmarked appropriation, and instead must consider other means of mitigation, including other sources of funding, adopting changes to the proposed project, adopting alternative projects, and ensuring that mitigation costs attributable to the project are included in the project's budget.
Mountain View Voice - Jul 30
On July 30, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District board approved $20 million in funding for a Caltrain electrification project expected to greatly reduce emissions and allow for expanded passenger service. The funding, to be paid out in installments over the next several years, will go toward the electrification of 51 miles of track between San Francisco and San Jose and the replacement of Caltrain's 29 diesel locomotives with electric models. The project will allow Caltrain to increase service from the current 92 trains per day to 114 per day, while reducing emissions by up to 97 percent by 2040, according to the air district's executive director. Caltrain expects to call for bids from contractors later this year, with service on the electrification project set to start by 2020, but the $1.53 billion project still needs to find $430 million in additional funding.
KPCC - Jul 29
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California introduced a new drought relief bill Wednesday that emphasizes long-term investments in desalination, recycling, and new or expanded reservoirs. The bill, which is dramatically different from an unsuccessful effort last year, identifies 105 potential recycling projects in the state and authorizes an additional $200 million to fund such projects, authorizes $600 million for water storage projects, and authorizes $100 million for desalination research and project designs. Feinstein said her bill would cost an estimated $1.3 billion over 10 years.
Courthouse News Service - Jul 31
California officials "ignored science" by approving an environmental impact report for hydraulic fracturing a week before the release of a state-mandated study, an environmental group claims in state court. The Center for Biological Diversity's complaint accuses the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources ("DOGGR") and the California Natural Resources Agency of violating the state's first hydraulic fracturing-disclosure law by drafting and approving a flawed EIR that downplayed the dangers of well stimulation and purposely avoided a much-anticipated hydraulic fracturing study conducted by the California Council on Science and Technology. The study, released one week after DOGGR finalized its EIR, called for the state to limit hydraulic fracturing operators' use of certain chemicals and found a lack of data on the impacts of stimulation wells on the state's groundwater supply.
SFGate - Aug 2
A Sacramento superior court judge has given California water regulators the go-ahead to enforce pumping restrictions on a small Central Valley irrigation district on Tuesday, denying the district's request to block enforcement of notices to stop pumping water. Last month, the judge issued a temporary restraining order against the state, halting enforcement of the curtailment notices because the notices violated the farmer's due process rights. But the state rewrote the curtailment notices to clarify that they were informational only, rescinding the language that the judge had found objectionable. Finding that due process was no longer an issue, the court denied the irrigation district's request for a preliminary injunction. Shortly after the revised notices were issued, the State Water Resources Control Board sent the irrigation district a draft cease and desist order. Thus, substantive questions, including the priority of the district’s water rights and the power of the Board to regulate senior water rights holders, remain pending.
